RFA's non-tendered ---> UFA status

[BKarchitect]

Riz,

I've posted this on HFBoards (Foppa) but I am finally getting around to uploading to the site. I have on game saved as "April Save" (using the TBL rosters on April 1st because I know you wanted to look at things about 3 months before the process happens and then another called "July Save" on July 1st, the first day of free agency in the off-season. The following are just a few of the key players and prospects who should be RFA and yet are not offered qualifying offers by their clubs and sent directly into the UFA pool. I know it may be getting a little picky - but frankly, in real life, team's do not tend to dump assets with value for nothing to this degree. A RFA holding out, sure...and I have seen that in EHM and that seems fine. But this mass dump of RFA's is a yearly occurrence, some years worse than others...2016 is not bad but 2017 gets really ugly for me when guys like Vasilevski, who is one of the top prospects in the game, almost always gets dumped.

Even if you want to argue "well, in this save, so-and-so was further down the depth chart so the CPU deemed them expendable" - I don't really buy that in this large of a quantity. If you look at the free agents from 2015 - link below, the RFA's who were not tendered offers and dumped into unrestrited free agency are listed under each team as "UFAs - UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENTS...The following players were not tendered a qualifying offer and are therefore Unrestricted Free Agents not subject to a right to match or draft choice compensation.". You will see a collection of failed prospects and never-were's...ECHL players, fringy AHL players and a few older retreads who are marginal players. All the players listed below would surely have been Group 2 - The players listed below have been tendered a qualifying offer by their respective Clubs and are subject to draft-choice compensation and right to match. The draft choice compensation scale is based on compensation offered by the new Club

http://www.nj.com/devils/index.ssf/2015/07/nhl_free_agent_list.html

Some of the RFA's dumped in this save progression (and some will get re-signed by their original team as you move forward from July 1st but this doesn't alleviate the issue that they are making it into clear and unprotected free agency from what should be RFA status):

- Chris Kreider

- Alex Killorn

- Jamie Oleksiak

- Scott Mayfield

- Dmitry Orlov

- Andrew Shaw

- Tyler Wotherspoon

- Marcus Foligno

- Riley Sheehan

- Josh Manson

- Marcus Kruger

- J.T. Brown

Thanks for having a look Riz!

[BKarchitect]

I did a "Kreider test" because he basically hits UFA every time. Played as the Rangers. Got the Rangers payroll real low and dealt away a ton of players (and then retired the day after the trade deadline). Kreider was still unsigned and unqualified at that point in time when I turned the reigns over to the CPU.

Sure enough - Kreider was qualified when I stopped the game on June 30:

On July 1st, he still hadn't signed with the Rangers but was now an RFA who you could only trade for his rights or approach with an offer sheet:

Update: By the end of summer, Kreider had signed a new long term deal with a higher cap hit that his qualifying offer:

[BKarchitect]

On June 30 of this save, the Caps had a cap total of $70.985 million and were only $416,000 under the cap with Orlov yet to be qualified. The CPU lets him go to UFA the next day. I took over on June 30 before this happens to see if as a human GM it lets me qualify Orlov at his $2 million salary and it does not - my board will only let me offer $1.689 million.

So that's that...but it really is only letting me offer Orlov a new long-term contract, it's not letting me extend a qualifying offer. Considering the next day, Washington's cap total will go way down with UFA's leaving, this seems to be the flaw in my mind. The ability to make a 1-year qualifying offer prior to July 1st to retain RFA rights shouldn't have an impact on your current cap hit IMO. It's almost like qualifying offers (by their nature only a 1-year deal) need to be a separate type of contract negotiation...you can make it, retain RFA rights, and then continue to negotiate for an actual contract over the course of the summer.

[IvanIvanovich]

I took over on June 30 before this happens to see if as a human GM it lets me qualify Orlov at his $2 million salary and it does not - my board will only let me offer $1.689 million.

So that's that...but it really is only letting me offer Orlov a new long-term contract, it's not letting me extend a qualifying offer. Considering the next day, Washington's cap total will go way down with UFA's leaving, this seems to be the flaw in my mind. The ability to make a 1-year qualifying offer prior to July 1st to retain RFA rights shouldn't have an impact on your current cap hit IMO. It's almost like qualifying offers (by their nature only a 1-year deal) need to be a separate type of contract negotiation...you can make it, retain RFA rights, and then continue to negotiate for an actual contract over the course of the summer.

The reason that your board will only let you offer $1.7M is that you have the player listed as "regular" not as "core" or "key". If you change his designation then the board will allow you to offer him more money.

There is nothing that says that a qualifying offer has to be a one year offer. A good way to make sure that you qualify a player that you intend to (try and) lower wages on is to offer a max length contract at minimum and make it two-way to make sure that he declines the offer. That way you'll have plenty of time in the summer to negotiate a contract at a lower level.

All of this is in the manual (at least it was in the manual for EHM2007).

[BKarchitect]

Thanks for the tip on that. It still seems an issue that CPU GM's let valuable RFAs go to unrestricted free agency. That's really more my concern as far as realism goes.

[IvanIvanovich]

I've never played with real players (always with faked ones) and I can't say that I've noticed this. There used to be the odd draftee that wasn't signed and went UFA but that seems to be fixed in this version (as opposed to EHM2007 and earlier).

Does this happen even to players that are signed by the AI GMs or only to players that the AI GM "inherits" at the start of the game? There could be huge differences in how a player is evaluated depending on if you signed and developed him or if he "happened to already be there" when you took over. Just look at Toronto and a certain defender...

If this is in the beginning (first few seasons) of a game then I'd expect a certain amount of "settling in" before a team have a good grip on their players. It is way too easy for us humans that can compare with how the players perform IRL (which is the reason for me using faked names).

[rohm24]

The reason that your board will only let you offer $1.7M is that you have the player listed as "regular" not as "core" or "key". If you change his designation then the board will allow you to offer him more money.

I simmed the first season until June 30th and the Rangers (CPU) haven't made a qualifying offer to Kreider yet, decided to add myself as Rangers GM and as BKarchitect said, I noticed that the board didn't allow me offer him more than 1.689M (he has a "Depth" player status). If I list him as "Core" player then I can offer him up to 7.069M. A qualifying offer of at least 2.475M is needed to retain his rights, so I guess kreider usually becomes an UFA because as a "Depth" player the board doesn't allow to make a better offer than 1.689M (probably this also happens to the other RFA players who didn't get a qualifying offer).

I think teams should make the qualifying offer regardless of player status so they don't lose them to UFA.

Another thing this made me wonder is if the players status/evaluation is correct, Kreider played in the 2nd line with good points production (47 points in 69 games) and his status is just a "Depth" player.

Sorry for my English.

[BKarchitect]

I simmed the first season until June 30th and the Rangers (CPU) haven't made a qualifying offer to Kreider yet, decided to add myself as Rangers GM and as BKarchitect said, I noticed that the board didn't allow me offer him more than 1.689M (he has a "Depth" player status). If I list him as "Core" player then I can offer him up to 7.069M. A qualifying offer of at least 2.475M is needed to retain his rights, so I guess kreider usually becomes an UFA because as a "Depth" player the board doesn't allow to make a better offer than 1.689M (probably this also happens to the other RFA players who didn't get a qualifying offer).

I think teams should make the qualifying offer regardless of player status so they don't lose them to UFA.

Another thing this made me wonder is if the players status/evaluation is correct, Kreider played in the 2nd line with good points production (47 points in 69 games) and his status is just a "Depth" player.

Sorry for my English.

Interesting, thanks for the input, your English is perfectly good! I need to go back to my save where I gutted the Rangers and Kreider DID get a qualifying offer from the CPU to see if, because I gutted the team, the CPU placed a higher role on him that allowed for the qualifying salary.

[IvanIvanovich]

I think teams should make the qualifying offer regardless of player status so they don't lose them to UFA.

Another thing this made me wonder is if the players status/evaluation is correct, Kreider played in the 2nd line with good points production (47 points in 69 games) and his status is just a "Depth" player.

Sorry for my English.

Well, a qualifying offer is just as much a contract offer as any other contract offer is, so the same "rules" should apply. You have to take into account that the player may very well accept the offer.

What status a player has is for the GM to decide. If the GM says a player is a depth player then that is what he is regardless on what line he plays. Normally a 2nd-liner would have core status but there are various reasons for not giving him it (personality, team depth in position/role, injury prone, salary demands etc.)

There's nothing wrong with your English.

[rohm24]

The player accepting the qualifying offer would be better than the team losing his rights. Ideally, the AI teams should be capable of deciding what's better for them: extending the qualifying offer, trading his rights before June 30th or just let the player become an UFA, but I didn't mention it because I don't know if it would too complicated for the AI or too hard to code.

What status a player has is for the GM to decide. If the GM says a player is a depth player then that is what he is regardless on what line he plays. Normally a 2nd-liner would have core status but there are various reasons for not giving him it (personality, team depth in position/role, injury prone, salary demands etc.)

But Kreider shouldn't be a Depth player in this case.

[IvanIvanovich]

The player accepting the qualifying offer would be better than the team losing his rights. Ideally, the AI teams should be capable of deciding what's better for them: extending the qualifying offer, trading his rights before June 30th or just let the player become an UFA, but I didn't mention it because I don't know if it would too complicated for the AI or too hard to code.

But Kreider shouldn't be a Depth player in this case.

I agree that the AI GM is not always of unlimited intelligence. :-)

Regarding Kreider, his GM obviously thinks that he should be a depth player. Why he thinks so is irrelevant as long as his board goes along with him and let him keep his job.

[Nino-33]

Regarding Kreider, his GM obviously thinks that he should be a depth player. Why he thinks so is irrelevant as long as his board goes along with him and let him keep his job.

I disagree

Seems to me Kreider's being valued to low (among others) is likely a bug that needs fixing

When things like CA/PA, age and ingame performance show the player as a quality top 6 player, he shouldn't be considered "Depth"

[IvanIvanovich]

I disagree

Seems to me Kreider's being valued to low (among others) is likely a bug that needs fixing

When things like CA/PA, age and ingame performance show the player as a quality top 6 player, he shouldn't be considered "Depth"

He's only 24 years old and the team has three other players at that position that are way more experienced whereof one is Nash. A "core" player is someone that you plan to build a team around and keep for a long time, I wouldn't make those decisions about a player with only three seasons under his belt. Other GMs make other decisions (Landeskog etc.) but it's not unreasonable for a GM to be conservative in this case.

[BKarchitect]

The crux of the issue though is not that the NY Rangers CPU GM considers Chris Kreider a depth player. It is that the CPU GM's regularly let go of valuable assets for nothing in a manner that is highly unrealistic if you look at the track record of RFA's that are non-tendered in the original post I made. Kreider, whether he is depth or not, is an example of a young player with good stats and excellent current and potential abilities - he is an asset that costs literally nothing more than a qualifying offer to maintain control of for the organization. And he is far from the only example of this occurring.

In real life, such assets are not just dumped for nothing, regardless of the situation that said player may find themselves in. It's not a case of saying "oh, the CPU GM doesn't see him fit to retain rights to with a qualifying offer" - its that CPU GM's regularly and completely squander talent in an unrealistic manner...and for those of us who play the game with real players, this is an issue which impacts our enjoyment of a game that we play to simulate realistic conditions.

I know that some mechanics in a game with this depth are quite complicated. I am well-tuned to the fact that trade AI in simulations like this is always, always going to be a bit hit-or-miss...and that is perfectly ok. And I am not trying to insinuate this one issue destroys the value of an awesome game. But I also don't think you can just brush this aside as "CPU GM being different than you would be as GM"...this is an issue for many of us because it affects the realism of the game. The bottom line is teams in real life, conservative or not, do not freely throw terrific young NHL assets like Chris Kreider and Dmitri Orlov and Andrei Vasilevsky down the drain. I think what many of us would like to see is an adjustment in the treatment of RFA's by the CPU such that qualifying offers are more consistently offered for talents than in no way, shape, or form should be let go for nothing.

[Nino-33]

He's only 24 years old and the team has three other players at that position that are way more experienced whereof one is Nash. A "core" player is someone that you plan to build a team around and keep for a long time, I wouldn't make those decisions about a player with only three seasons under his belt. Other GMs make other decisions (Landeskog etc.) but it's not unreasonable for a GM to be conservative in this case.

Kreider has a PA slightly higher than Nash does (and being 31 Nash is not someone you "build around" either)

Being so conservative you let such a player go for nothing is not realistic IMO

We'll just have to agree to disagree Ivan

[IvanIvanovich]

Kreider has a PA slightly higher than Nash does (and being 31 Nash is not someone you "build around" either)

Being so conservative you let such a player go for nothing is not realistic IMO

We'll just have to agree to disagree Ivan

The only thing we disagree about is where the problem lies. :-)

IMHO it's all about the interaction with how the board is (not) modeled. There is no way to communicate with the board about their "wage caps". They don't take reality into account when they limit what you may spend on players and you have no way of challenging them. I've "complained" about this since the original version of the game was released.

There are cases where I have had two or three players going UFA (or retiring) and the board still include their salary when they decide to limit what I can offer other players. There is also no way of letting the board know that I intend to trade someone during off-season so they can discount that amount and let me use it elsewhere.

This is the area where the work should be put in. It's here the root causes for odd behaviour like Kreider originates. It has nothing to do with AI, it is all about limitations in the modelling of GM - Board interactions. The GM shouldn't have to change the status of Kreider, all he should have to do is to ask the board to lift the salary limit for his offer and let him tell them why he thinks so.

Any sensible board would agree (IRL) if given good reasons, here it's impossible to even ask.